Trevathan ieba0268.tex V2-01/27/2018 12:48 A.M. Page 1 Intelligent design (ID) refers to an ancient philosophical and religious concept as well as to a modern movement opposed to evolutionary science in research and education. Advocates of ID believe that an intelligent entity brought the universe, life, and human beings into existence, andconverselythatnounguidednaturalprocess could have given rise to such complexity and elegance. Evolution (see evolution), under- stood as an undirected, natural process involving genes, probability, and populations, is declared to be insufficient to produce any novelty in the development of organisms. Greek philosophers, as well as others in other cultures, saw intricacy, beauty, and functionality in natural objects, particularly living organisms. Development of animals from eggs, and trees and flowers from seeds, appeared to be highly organized and restricted, as though following a plan. Thenotionofaplanbehindanatomyanddevelopment suggested the action of a planning agent, a designer, a supreme mover. This idea is akin to and often expressed with notions of teleology, orpurpose, and is sometimes referred to as the Argument from Design. In religious traditions, such teleological, design-based thinking has often been employed to underpin or even prove the existence of a supreme being, of God or Allah in the Abrahamic religions. A prime, succinct example is the fifth argument for the existence of God set forth by St Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century. In the history of evolutionary and anthropological thought, no expression of the Argument from Design is more important than that proposed by English clergyman William Paley in his Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity (1802). Paley set ieba0167 Intelligent design BRIANA POBINER Smithsonian Institution, USA MARK TERRY The Northwest School, USA Historical and philosophical perspective forthasmuchasheknewabouttheintricacies of anatomy and the natural world, particularly human anatomy, and claimed, enthusiastically, that all of this was evidence of not only the existence of the Creator but also the benign character of the Creator. He begins with the oft-cited watchmaker analogy, which holds that the complex workings of the natural world necessitate an intelligent Creator no less than do the complex mechanisms of a watch. This thinking was popular, widely disseminated, and considered scientific in the early nineteenth century. The eight Bridgewater Treatises (1833 40) expanded on Paley s work, touching on everything from anatomy and behavior to chemistry and geology, all with the aim of praising the good work of the Creator. Treatise #4, The Hand: Its Mechanism and Endowments as Evincing Design (Bell 1833), is of particular interest, since it explores the human hand, including the comparative anatomy of extremities of a wide variety of vertebrates, including primates. Charles Darwin (see darwin, charles r.) studied Paley s work thoroughly (and occupied Paley s former rooms at Cambridge), and embarked on the Beagle in 1832 as a proponent of the Argument from Design in its natural theology form. As science has probed the biochemical and genetic nature of living things since Paley s time, life appears even more complex, and ID proponents credit the Designer with producing that complexity. In their publications for mainstream audiences, modern ID proponents make no claims about who the Designer is and offer no explanations about how the Designer works. This appears to be a departure from Paley s Natural Theology, which claimed outright that the intelligence behind all of nature was the God of Christian Scripture. However, in addressing religious audiences, ID proponents identify the designer as the Christian God. Modern ID advocates occupy positions on a scale of beliefs that range all the way from the old-earth creationist position that accepts limited degrees of evolution within species over time, to a young-earth creationist position that insists that all living things, down to their DNA, RNA, and cellular components, were brought into existence ieba0116 The International Encyclopedia of Biological Anthropology.EditedbyWendaTrevathan. 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Trevathan ieba0268.tex V2-01/27/2018 12:48 A.M. Page 2 2 INTELLIGENT DESIGN only a few thousand years ago and are maintained by the constant activity of the Designer. Such competing views are of more than philosophical interest, because ID followers have taken their place in a long line of creationist authors and activists attempting to influence how biology in general, and human evolution (or hominin origins) in particular, are taught in public schools. The intelligent design (ID) movement The emergence of an ID movement in the 1990s is best understood in the context of creationist struggles to control the teaching of evolution in US public schools throughout the twentieth century. The landmark Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 (The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes), while popularly remembered for exposing the weakness of the creationist approach, drove publishers away from inclusion of any evolutionary science in high-school textbooks for thenextfourdecades.johnscopes,asubstitute high-school teacher, was accused of violating Tennessee s Butler Act, which made it illegal to teach human evolution in public schools. Although he could not recall whether he had actually taught evolution in class, Scopes agreed toserveasadefendantinthiscase,whichwas financed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Town businessmen hoped the trial would bring publicity and economic gain to Dayton, Tennessee. Scopes was found guilty and fined $100, but the verdict was subsequently overturned by the Tennessee Supreme Court on a technicality, making it impossible for the defense to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The Butler Act remained in force. Inthesecondhalfofthecentury,aserious effort funded by the Federal Government to enhance science education suddenly brought evolution back into high-school textbooks, led by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) series, launched in 1963. Creationists responded with further attempts, first, to ban the teaching of evolution, and, when that tactic failed, to require equal time for teaching Creation Science. In court cases in Arkansas (1968, 1982) and Louisiana (1987), each of these attempts was found by federal courts to be unconstitutional. As these court battles wrapped up in the 1980s, a group of creationists assembled and began to plan a new approach: promoting ID. Central to this strategy was the notion that ID would be presented as new, cutting-edge science, not creationism. Neither God nor Scripture would be mentioned. The roots of ID in traditional creationism were revealed during an important (and, to date, the only) legal case involving ID (discussed below), when successive early drafts of a supplemental high-school text were closely examined. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins (Davis and Kenyon 1993) was originally published in 1989. Most of the book s arguments are identical to those of traditional creationists, and early drafts from the 1980s used creationism, creator, and creationist terminology throughout, making no reference to ID. Following the 1987 United States Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that found inclusion of creation science in Louisiana public school science curricula unconstitutional, all of the original creationist terms were switched throughout subsequent drafts to terms such as intelligent design, agency or designer, and intelligent design proponent (Forrest and Gross 2007). In 1996, an infusion of donor funding concentrated the talents of a group of ID advocates and authors at the Discovery Institute (DI), a conservative public affairs think-tank in Seattle, Washington, that was founded in 1990. Since formation of the DI and its Center for Science and Culture (originally the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture), an aggressive print, electronic, video, and conference outreach program has been underway. Most publications have been through either established religious publishing houses or DI s own press. Four ID authors have succeeded in publishing through major publishers (Michael Behe: Free Press; William Dembski: Rowman & Littlefield; Stephen Meyer and Douglas Axe: Harper s religious imprint, Harper One). ID authors have not succeeded in gaining acceptance by peer-reviewed science journals. They have instead founded their own journals (e.g., BIO-Complexity, whichhasbeen published annually since 2010), much as creationists began their own journals in the 1960s (e.g., Creation Research Society Quarterly, foundedin
Trevathan ieba0268.tex V2-01/27/2018 12:48 A.M. Page 3 INTELLIGENT DESIGN 3 1964). In addition, like earlier creation science organizations (such as the Institute for Creation Research founded in 1972), ID proponents have established their own research laboratory, the Biologic Institute, for which the DI provides funding. Shifting strategies: from the Wedge to Academic Freedom In 1998 a DI fundraising document, subsequently leaked to the public in 1999, outlined an ambitious Wedge Strategy to change American culture via the acceptance of ID in scientific research and in public discourse, education, and policy. The Wedge of ID, using a metaphor first proposed by then-uc Berkeley law professor Philip Johnson, would weaken the grip of scientific materialism and bring America back to conservative Christian theistic values and policies throughout public life. An initial goal set forth in this Wedge Document was the inclusion of ID in public school science curricula (Forrest and Gross 2007). Alongside the effort to inject ID into schools,thedicampaignedfora TeachtheControversy strategy, promoting a false perception that evolution is a controversial theory in crisis being hotly debated within the scientific community, and that scientists are trying to suppress new scientific information, particularly ID, that challenges the status quo. Beginning in 2004, the DI also began promoting an Academic Freedom approach. Template legislation was made widely availableforstateorlocaladoptiontodefendthe right of teachers to include whatever material they might find useful in the teaching of controversial topics. Whereas evolution has been traditionally singled out in creationist legislation, these academic freedom bills also commonly target global warming and human cloning. Dozens of state education committees and legislatures have dealt with such bills. Some of the language in these bills refers to teaching the strengths and weaknesses or undertaking critical analysis of evolution, phrases long used in prior creationist campaigns to undermine the teaching of evolution. Three states (Louisiana in 2008, Tennessee in 2012, and Florida in 2017) adopted them. The push to include ID in public school science curricula led to a dramatic outcome in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2005. Parents sued the Dover School District in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania over the requirement that a statement presenting ID as a scientific alternative to evolution be read aloud in ninth grade science classes in which evolution was taught. The statement also directed students to the supplemental text Of Pandas and People (Davis and Kenyon 1993), dozens of copies of which were provided in the high-school library. The DI, which had not initiated the Dover policy and failed to persuade the school board to either revise or withdraw it, reluctantly cooperated with the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), which represented the board, by agreeing to provide expert witnesses for the defense. Although several of the DI s witnesses withdrew because of disagreements with the TMLC legal team, three went on to testify, most notably Michael Behe. The trial attracted national and international attention, and the judge s ruling declared that the Dover School Board had acted with religious intent, contrary to law, and concluded: In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents (Jones 2005, 136). Creationism in a wide array of forms continues to thrive in the United States and, to a more limited extent, in many other countries. Young-earth creationists are frequently not in sympathy with the ID movement because of its efforts to appear purely scientific and to avoid invocation of the identity of any Designer. Highly successful groups such as Answers in Genesis, creators of the Creation Museum, and, recently, the Ark Encounter, a replica of Noah s ark, in Kentucky, are overt in their identification with the GodoftheBible.Someofthesegroups,however, appreciate and embrace ID s ongoing critique of Darwinism. Intelligent design and human evolution Contemporary ID authors have made specific claims about human evolution and paleoanthropology (see paleoanthropology). The section on The Origin of Man in Of Pandas and People ieba0359
Trevathan ieba0268.tex V2-01/27/2018 12:48 A.M. Page 4 4 INTELLIGENT DESIGN (Davis and Kenyon 1993) presents three arguments: (1) fossils of human ancestors are rare and fragmentary (citing an outdated 1984 Science commentary); (2) the fossil record of primates contains distinct types that appear abruptly, remain essentially unchanged, and sometimes abruptly disappear; and (3) there is no evidence for transitional forms in the hominin fossil record. These assertions have been reiterated often throughout ID literature and are identical tothosemadebymainstreamcreationists. Additional ID pronouncements on human evolution allege the weakness and contentiousness of the science: (1) fossil reconstructions are arbitrary; (2) fossils do not establish ancestor descendant relationships; and (3) fossils are simply placed into pre-existing, pro-evolution narratives. Robust disagreements and discussions among mainstream scientists are presented as signsofweaknessratherthanstrength. DI s Science and Human Origins (Gauger, Axe, and Luskin 2012) is ID s most extensive offering on human evolution. It consists of five essays by three authors, none of whom has any background in paleoanthropology. The essays reiterate the points already made in Of Pandas and People. Using headlines from the popular press and sensational quotations from scientists taken out of context, the attempt is made to portray the field of human evolution as being in permanent, nonproductive turmoil. A prime example of ID analysisinthebookisattorneycaseyluskin s treatment of the widely accepted evidence of common ancestry that is derived from comparison of human chromosome #2 with two shorter chimpanzee chromosomes. Luskin argues that humans and chimpanzees genetic similarity could just as easily be taken as evidence for the action of a Designer as for natural, evolutionary processes.sincetherearenolimitsonwhata Designer might do, the argument is unassailable and therefore unscientific. Another key argument against human evolution by modern ID proponents, just as it was in Paley sday,isthathumancognitiveandcommunicative abilities such as intelligence, language, art, abstraction, altruism, and ethics cannot adequately be accounted for by random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, or any evolutionary process not guided by intelligence. This is essentially the same argument that distanced Alfred Russell Wallace (see wallace, alfred russel) from Charles Darwin, since Wallace asserted in his later years that human capabilities could not be explained by gradual natural selection. Darwin maintained they could. The DI credits Alfred Russell Wallace as being ID s Lost Ancestor. These and other ID arguments about improbability and insufficient time focus on how evolution as currently understood could not possibly work; modern ID is principally a negative argument strategy. REFERENCES Bell, Charles. 1833. The Hand: Its Mechanism and Vital Endowments as Evincing Design. London:William Pickering. Davis, Percival W., and Dean H. Kenyon. 1993. Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins.Dallas:HaughtonPublishingCompany. Forrest, Barbara, and Paul R. Gross. 2007. Creationism s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. New York: Oxford University Press. Gauger, Ann, Douglas Axe, and Casey Luskin. 2012. Science and Human Origins.Seattle:DiscoveryInstitute Press. Jones, John E, III. 2005. Memorandum Opinion, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. USDistrict CourtfortheMiddleDistrictofPennsylvania. Paley, William. 1802. Natural Theology or Evidences of theexistenceandattributesofthedeitycollected from the Appearance of Nature.London:Hallowell. FURTHER READING Numbers, Ronald L. 2006. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pobiner, Briana. 2016. Accepting, Understanding, Teaching, and Learning (Human) Evolution: Obstacles and Opportunities. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 159: S232 74. Scott, Eugenie. C. 2009. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction,2nded.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press. ieba0514
Trevathan ieba0268.tex V2-01/27/2018 12:48 A.M. Page 5 Please note that the abstract and keywords will not be included in the printed book, but are required for the online presentation of this book which will be published on Wiley s own online publishing platform. Iftheabstractandkeywordsarenotpresentbelow,pleasetakethisopportunitytoaddthemnow. The abstract should be a short paragraph of between 50 and 150 words in length and there should be at least 3 keywords. ABSTRACT Intelligent design (ID) is a nonscientific idea that holds certain features of the universe and living things as too complex to have arisen through undirected, chance processes such as evolutionbynaturalselection.instead,proponentsclaimthesefeaturesareevidenceofdesignin nature and best explained by an unspecified intelligent cause or agent. The modern ID movement, which seeks to include ID content in science classrooms, distances itself from its clear Christian creationist roots by deliberately not referencing a supernatural designer. KEYWORDS Intelligent design; creationism; teleology; natural theology; Darwin; Scopes trial; Discovery Institute; Wedge strategy; evolution education